User talk:Doniago/Archive 18

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Flying Horses Carousel
Just for the record, I don't know where that information I put in there came from. Someone came along last month and made a hash of the article - the information looked decent, but everything else (infobox, categories, geocoordinates) had been erased in the process. I reverted the edits in question and incorporated the information that I thought would be useful into the article as it now stands. Doesn't matter to me if it stays or not; I've never been to Martha's Vineyard, and have no way of knowing how accurate it may or may not be. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it should probably stay out if neither of us have any idea whether it's accurate and no citations are available for it. We could maybe push it to the Talk page if it's not already there. DonIago (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hrmm. I'll give it some thought.  The rest of the stuff that I removed was operating hours, fees, and things of that nature, that I really don't feel belong here in the first place.  See this dif for what I mean.  Think any of that is worth moving over to the talkpage? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if it's unsourced I probably wouldn't bother, and if it is sourced, I feel it might be WP:TRIVIA. I don't suppose there are any other good carousel articles we could use as a precedent? DonIago (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC).

Citizen Kane response attempt
I don't have the best mastery of Wikipedia, and I do not know if you will see this, but I'll post here anyway. I do have a cite for the listing as a comedy drama-it is an interview with Wells himself, calling the film a comedy, on top of the drama. However, I did not have the time to go through everything to find the cite when I started the edit. I am sorry I did not cite it, and based on your page I know you are a stickler for such things. You can either take my word for it, look for the cite yourself, or you can give me a few days and I can try to locate it. Thanks, and again, I apologize for my inability to work the talk pages on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.177.156 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that new topics should usually be started at the bottom of Talk pages. In any case, it's not just up to me. Really you should bring this up at Talk:Citizen Kane so that other editors are also aware...and it's usually best to wait until you can provide a source so that editors won't think you're trying to insert information without sourcing it, but I appreciate your letting me know. I suspect people will say, "When you can add the source feel free to add the info as well". Cheers. DonIago (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Monopoly
I'm still working on that page and adding references. I appreciate your trying to work with some speed, but please give some editors a chance to make their edits and references without undoing their work mid-edit. --JohnDBuell (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I had no way of knowing you were doing long-term work either. May be worth posting to the article's Talk page next time to avoid any misunderstandings. DonIago (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Warm Bodies
This is regarding your edits in the critical reception of Warm Bodies. If you wish to have the consensus changed from mixed to positive discuss it in the talk page. You have given no valid reason as of yet as to why it should be changed, and saying I should discuss in the talk isn't going to work, as it has been mixed to positive all this time and I am not the one trying to change it, you are. It seems as if you're trying to twist the films reception more in its favour than it actually is, which goes against Wikipedia's neutral editing rules - Metacritic score is 59/100 and Rotten Tomatoes score is 81% which means reviews are mixed to positive, as is the common practise on this site. If you edit the critical reception one more time without reaching a consensus on the talk page, you will be in violation of the 3 reverse rule, and you will be reported to supervising editor and can be blocked from editing the page in the future. Thanks - Jak Fisher (talk) 21:10, 29 July, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it as is for the time-being, but I've asked other editors for their opinions here. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that just because the text of an article has been a certain way doesn't mean either that it's correct according to policy or that it should continue to remain that way. In any case, I'll wait to see what others have to say on the matter. You are, of course, welcome to participate in that discussion. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is now a discussion at the article's Talk page as well. Regards. DonIago (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Brothers (TNG)
Regarding the removal of the link to the tor.com rewatch. These rewatches are linked on all season 2 & 3 TNG Wikipedia articles added by Einmaliger I believe. Beyond the review the rewatches provide interesting information about the actors who guest-star as well as listing any other stories in the Star Trek canon that are relevant to the episode's plot. It is this tie-in information that I believe makes it a useful resource in the External Links section. If these links are indeed not appropriate to Wikipedia then they should also be removed from the seasons 2 & 3 articles. - mlsquad —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to its reinclusion on the grounds you've provided, but it should be made clear why this review is significantly more important than any other review. We shouldn't encourage editors to post links to every single review of every single episode. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

List of fictional elements
Why was my edit reverted? I understand it wasn't the most complete, however it was relevant, and correct. it seemed to be more a candidate for expansion than deletion...Jewhealer (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because you didn't provide any reliable source establishing how it's a significant fictional element, and the list is already suffering from bloat. This is discussed in more detail at WP:IPC. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit war over. Change it back if you want, I'm done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewhealer (talk • contribs) 23:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um. Okay. DonIago (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Skall
Hello, Doniago. I added the part Skall, which is a metal in Sectaurs franchise. I don't understand why the deletion. E.A.Kowalewski (talk) 12:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason I noted for the other change above? You should include a reliable source establishing that the fictional element is significant in some manner. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Beth and Esther being recurring characters on Family Guy
We had a deal. I gave you my sources. Now I can re-add Beth and Esther as recurring characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.231.235 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Discuss it at the article's Talk page instead of edit-warring, please. I see no evidence that you added sources. Do you have a WP:DIFF? Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have that. Beth appears in Fifteen Minutes of Shame, Blind Ambition, Petarded, Jungle Love, Barely Legal, Peter's Two Dads, and Peter's Daughter. And with Esther, I added that she is an African-American girl. That should be enough for them to be listed as recurring characters.
 * So what? That's WP:TRIVIA and has nothing to do with a reliable source. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Come on man. You're making this harder than it is. I gave you my best sources and information. If it needs better information, I will give it more if you say so. But I gave my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.231.235 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the links I provided? Because I haven't seen you provide any sources so far. You've provided wikilinks to episodes those characters appeared in, but those aren't sources. You need information from a third-party, not "They appeared in these episodes", because that doesn't make them significant. DonIago (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.

Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:


 * Views/Day : Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
 * Quality : Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.

The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:


 * Content : Is more content needed?
 * Headings : Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
 * Images : Is the number of illustrative images about right?
 * Links : Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
 * Sources : For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)